Posted
by
samzenpuson Monday May 07, 2012 @12:27PM
from the it's-getting-hot-in-here dept.

Hugh Pickens writes "The Telegraph reports that huge plant-eating dinosaurs called sauropods may have produced enough greenhouse gas by breaking wind to alter the Earth's climate. Scientists believe that, just as in cows, methane-producing bacteria aided the digestion of sauropods by fermenting their plant food. 'A simple mathematical model suggests that the microbes living in sauropod dinosaurs may have produced enough methane to have an important effect on the Mesozoic climate,' says study leader Dr Dave Wilkinson. 'Indeed, our calculations suggest that these dinosaurs could have produced more methane than all modern sources — both natural and man-made — put together.' The key factor is the total mass of the animals which included some of the largest animals to walk the Earth, such as Diplodocus, which measured 150 feet and weighed up to 45 tons. Medium-sized sauropods weighed about 20 tons and lived in herds of up to a few tens of individuals per square kilometer so global methane emissions from the animals would have amounted to around 472 million tons per year, the scientists calculated. Sauropods alone may have been responsible for an atmospheric methane concentration of one to two parts per million (ppm), say the scientists and studies have suggested that the Earth was up to 10C (18F) warmer in the Mesozoic Era. ''The Mesozoic trend to sauropod gigantism led to the evolution of immense microbial vats unequaled in modern land animals. Methane was probably important in Mesozoic greenhouse warming. Our simple proof-of-concept model suggests greenhouse warming by sauropod megaherbivores could have been significant in sustaining warm climates.'"

So you're claiming that humans themselves produce radioactive fallout in a fashion comparable to how ruminants produce methane? I hope not, because that would make you appear a bigger idiot than, say, Glenn Beck or Rick Santorum, and nobody wants that, not least being Beck or Santorum themselves for stealing their limelight.

The world today is very different than the world millions of years ago. There were a lot more trees back then, which provided more shade for the ground and more oxygen in the air. It's not Methane alone that is affecting the planet, it's ALL of the ABOVE!

The world today is very different than the world millions of years ago. There were a lot more trees back then, which provided more shade for the ground and more oxygen in the air. It's not Methane alone that is affecting the planet, it's ALL of the ABOVE!

The same can be said for any particular point in this planet's history. The author's contention is not that methane was the sole reason for global warming during that era, only that it was the dominant one. Please read the articles more carefully in the future and use common sense.

Legitimate question: 65 million years ago, were trees/plants as efficient at converting carbon dioxide to Oxygen? I assume trees have evolved since then to become better at what they do.

Once you had 'trees' you have modern photosynthesis. There might have been some qualitative differences with more surface area, etc, but the higher temps and just plain more organic matter would have likely trumped any later 'efficiencies'. Basically, once photosynthesis jumped out of the cyanobacteria (about 3+ billion years ago), the molecular mechanism has been highly conserved.

Thanks for the reply! Reignites my faith in Slashdot's readership. Can't say the same for the thread above. I came here looking for cute jokes about dinosaur farts and instead stumbled into an ideological clusterfuck.

Your understanding of evolution is off. Crocodiles have been evolutionary stagnant for millions of years. Evolution is the process of genetic mutations creating subtle variations in lifeforms. In extremely rare cases a subject has the right mutation to affect his entire species and an evolutionary change occurs. While optimization does occur, its doesnt do so in the direct manner you suggest.

Evolution is the process of genetic mutations creating subtle variations in lifeforms. In extremely rare cases a subject has the right mutation to affect his entire species and an evolutionary change occurs.

Okay.... so correct me. Based on my flawed understanding, it seems to me a plant that can better process light+water+co2 would have a competitive advantage over the other plants. Maybe such a plant can grow in the shade where others cannot, since it can make more efficient use of the light it does get. It therefore follows that over a couple million years this component of selection would produce plants that are better and more efficient at converting CO2 to O2. So I'm curious where my incorrect assumption

They must have, because there is much less CO2 in the atmosphere today than it was the case in the Mesozoic. They must work harder at extracting it today than they did back then.

Trees also respire (take O2, give off CO2). The net contribution of all trees to the oxygen on the plaet is around 20% or so of all the oxygen avialable. 50% comes from plankton blooms. The rest I'm not sure where - algae perhaps.

Trees take CO2 and produce O2 as part of photosynthesis. But at night when there isn't any going on, tre

That's true, but the question was the efficiency of trees at converting CO2. Provided that the metabolic rate of the plant is the same, it needs, e.g., fewer pores in the epidermis to breathe CO2 in. But I guess that this is a simple evolutionary adaptation, just create more of something instead of less of it, no biochemical breakthrough necessary. Just like with the finch beaks.

How's this:Since the dinosaurs never existed, because God put the bones in the ground for us to find and remind us we will one day die and go to heaven, it's easier than ever to say that climate change doesn't, and never did, exist.

It may have no basis in a religious text, but I've heard people say this exact sort of crap. It's their misguided attempt to compress all of prehistory to 6 days or some such nonsense. Couldn't really have dinosaurs live and die within days, God must have put their bones there to test our faith, etc.

150ft is half a football field. That's American football. I'm sure that will clear it up for you./sarcasm

I understand that the unit of feet is not common around the world, but do you not know what a foot is? They are the things at the end of your legs that have those 5 toes attached. If you measure it from ankle to toe, it's probably around a foot in length. That's not gonna cut it for any accurate measurement, but should help you visualize the unit of a foot.

the history of the MAFIAA extended so far back in history. Maybe they are the root cause of the current climate changes. A hypothesis as believable as many of the alternate hypothesis bruited by the alarmists.

The problem with climate change is the rate. The dinosaurs, were here for 160 MILLION years. The amount of time it took for the type of climate change the research is suggesting (due to excrement) is hard to agree with. There could have been a lot of other naturally contributing factors in that timescale.

The amount of climate change brought about in the past 100 years, however, is largely due to anthropogenic emissions. People consuming resources, driving, industry, cows (yes meat production and transportation as well as dairy farm methane), depletion of natural carbon sinks, irresponsible land use and the list goes on.

So stop trying to push climate change off as a totally natural occurrence that we have nothing to worry about. The earth's climate has never remained the same for long, and yes it's had plenty of warm and cold spells in the past but never, ever have we been able to find that rate of change occurring over the course of a measly 100 years. This is the worrisome part. People need to accept that we have changed the course of climate on this planet at a rate never seen before and the earth will continue to warm unless we start changing the way we live. And soon.

never, ever have we been able to find that rate of change occurring over the course of a measly 100 years

If it had happened, would be be able to tell? Once you get further into the past than we can examine via ice cores and such, can we tell the difference between a change that took a day (i.e. massive catastrophe), or a century, or 10,000 years? My guess is that the answer is "not usually". I'd guess that there may be some cases in which we're lucky enough to have fossil records that provide sufficiently fine resolution to distinguish, but that geologic time scales being what they are, usually we just don'

I must be missing something here, because I'm struggling to figure out what the difference is between plants going through the digestive tracts of ruminants, where bacterial flora break down the carbohydrates, cellulose and hemi-cellulose into carbon dioxide, methane and other gases, and natural decay/composting, where bacterial flora break down the carbohydrates, cellulose and hemi-cellulose into carbon dioxide, methane and other gases.

Is the ratio of gases vastly different between ruminant digestion and '

Well, A cow does on average releases 100 kg of Methane per year. In total this would beat out the dinosaurs by far. Evolution may not be so smart after all. But hey, we need the cows.
The obvious solution therefore, is to simply have climate change theorists stop exhaling. If you want to help, just shut up and plant a tree.All this talk of increased CO2 is obviously not helping!

Large numbers of herbivores, are consistent across the fossil record. As are billions of plant eating insects and zillions of methane producing bacteria. Therefore the methane product should be relatively consistent, and constant element in the climate. Since the climate swings between a relatively defined temperature band, the methane is obviously accounted for in the system making this a non-story.

What the article says is that they assumed dinosaurs produced methane. They assumed the amount of methane. Th

One small thing; If these "mathematical models" have anything to do with assuming Sauropods farted proportionally as much as industrial cows, I'd politely disagree and want more proof. Sauropods ate what they were designed to eat; most cows do not. If they take a grass fed and naturally pastured cow, if not wild (not corn and grain fed and stressed to the max) and calculate based on the amount of flatulence those cows produce, I'd be more convinced. There's a reason conventional cows have to be given daily antibiotics in their "feed" and that's because they shouldn't be eating that food in the first place. Affect bowels? You bet your gassy, grain fed ass it does.

Careful citizen. At the most-recent Warming Conference a scientist proposed labeling climate-deniers as "mentally ill" and sending them to hospitals to be cured of this deficiency. She got unanamious applause.

To be honest I hope Obama DOES win re-election. I want the next four years to destroy anything left of his legacy.

This is the problem with Americans today. Instead of desiring a bright, hopeful, prosperous future, we instead want one where the people we dislike bring us into ruin just so we can say "I told you so."

He's pretty much in line with his Republican pals here. Making "letting Obama fail" your sole stated political goal is borderline treasonous. Well, I watch it from a distance, but it is sad to see such a promising, yet shortlived experiment like the US fail.

He's pretty much in line with his Republican pals here. Making "letting Obama fail" your sole stated political goal is borderline treasonous. Well, I watch it from a distance, but it is sad to see such a promising, yet shortlived experiment like the US fail.

Is the same true of someone who said "I don't like how Florida counted votes or that the Supreme Court didn't do what I wanted them to, so George Bush is not my president"?

In a democracy, you have to accept the results even if you lose. In a democracy you don't scream "fraud" just because you lost.

Be careful about throwing around words like "treason" (and "terrorism") just because you want to sound loud and powerful and savor the taste of outrage. Are you so absolutely certain those words could never, eve

Is the same true of someone who said "I don't like how Florida counted votes or that the Supreme Court didn't do what I wanted them to, so George Bush is not my president"?

Except that is a legitimate gripe. Bush would have lost a state wide recount. The Supreme Court violated it's neutrality to make a political appointment. That's seriously bad for your country.

In a democracy, you have to accept the results even if you lose. In a democracy you don't scream "fraud" just because you lost.

No, but it will always be the losers who report fraud. The winners generally won't because, you know, they won. If you dismiss any claims of fraud because they come from "sore losers" then you've already conceded that you have no interest in fair or honest elections.

Be careful about throwing around words like "treason" (and "terrorism") just because you want to sound loud and powerful and savor the taste of outrage.

Dude, you are so far out of your tree, the squirrels are sending out search parties.

Also, history. Whatever numbnut came up with that simplistic "corporate state in the fascist sense" = "run by corporations in the civil law sense" bullshit, anyway? That's missing whole layers of ideology and paints a completely wrong picture of what "corporate" meant back then.

Not that I'm pro-Obama (I don't really like any of your presidents in recent history), but I don't get this line of reasoning:

He has assasinated 3 americans

Well, no, he didn't. His orders led to the death of three "Americans" (I prefer US citizens), but couldn't you say the same about every president who has started a war where US soldiers have died? Why are these deaths particularly worse?

Not to mention how apparently killing thousands of innocent civilians is apparently OK, but three(!) US citizens is terrible? To me, the death of inn

Well, no, he didn't. His orders led to the death of three "Americans" (I prefer US citizens), but couldn't you say the same about every president who has started a war where US soldiers have died? Why are these deaths particularly worse?

I'm not 100% caught up on current events, but wasn't one of the Americans explicitly targeted by the military, despite knowing that he was a US citizen? The proper course of action would have been capture and trial, not "kill on sight with hellfire missiles".

Not to mention how apparently killing thousands of innocent civilians is apparently OK, but three(!) US citizens is terrible? To me, the death of innocent people is equally wrong, regardless of their country of origin.

Noble sentiments, but they ignore thousands of years of tribalism. When the tribal leader starts throwing his own tribesmen into the volcano, you know something's wrong.

You probably are right - Hanlon's razor pretty much dictates that it is based on an inability to examine facts and evaluated sources rather than on some pathology. And the propaganda put out by Heartland, Watts and the like is so much more simple and palatable, so hey, why not gobble it up.

Yeah, yeah, and Ted Nugent got unanimous applause for insinuating that he or someone else would assassinate the President. Hyperbole often tends to cross lines of appropriate discussion, sometimes causing actual offense, but let's not give credence to it by pretending it's more than it is.

Presumably by everyone in the audience. I'm curious whether it was a rousing ovation or a polite "maybe if we golf-clap she'll go away happy", but either way, they didn't jeer at her for being a loon. They tacitly approved of her lunacy.

When taken together with his prior claim that someone needs to shoot Obama, it actually does come off that way. Were they unrelated statements? Maybe. Was he trying to carefully thread the needle between legal expression and incitement to violence? Probably. Does he really believe someone should kill the President? I doubt it.

And look, that was just a recent popular example. I'm sure you can find more, less well known (though equally as obscure as cpu6502's) examples of people making exaggerated clai

Funny enough. The Soviets did the same thing to "revolutionary reactionists" or the people who didn't believe in the glories of the motherland. Then they decided that sending them off to gulags or killing them was better.

At the most-recent Warming Conference a scientist proposed labeling climate-deniers as "mentally ill" and sending them to hospitals to be cured of this deficiency.

Who (name) said what (quote) where (place) when (date)?

But at least the people who modded you "+5 Informative") demonstrated what passes as facts in climate deniers camp. And since advanced enough self-deception is indistinguishable from genuine mental illness, perhaps we should forgive any real of imaginary person who confuses the two.

I always love to look up the context for quotes. So tell me...where did this quote come from? When did the word "treated" get "added" in? Obviously, the word "treated" is the source of all the consternation, with folks jumping to believe that the word implies sending skeptics away to hospitals (as cpu6502 alleges). Where is the proper context, so that we may determine what capacity "treated" was being used in?

Let's start with the Register. (lol, half a step above the Daily Mail!)

reminds me of the sign in the Customer Service office that handles the Truckers, "Customer Service is like making love to a Raptor, you don't stop when you're satisfied. You stop when the Raptor is satisfied." With apologies to Mr. Spielberg.

I see no problem... -> Where could all those microbes have been . -> no evidence in ocean, ground, air . -> animals? . -> huge populations of dinosaurs that would have needed microbes to process plants like cows? . -> create computer model to test . -> article says it could be possible

A model is only as good as its assumptions, and their assumptions about population density seem difficult to believe. Tens of sauropods per square kilometer? A quick Google search shows that population densities for African elephants are on the order of.1-4 individuals per square kilometer. Even assuming sauropods had a somewhat lower metabolism than an elephant, it's difficult to believe that you could take sauropods, which are several times the size of an elephant, and pack them in at ten times the population density; they'd just strip all the leaves off the trees and then starve to death. That's ignoring the fact that the plants may have been less productive, which would limit the amount of food available. The dominant trees in the Mesozoic are conifers, which grow more slowly than modern flowering plants, so there's just not as much forage being produced by the environment.

We don't know for sure how fast a sauropod's metabolism was compared to an elephant's. If their metabolisms were similar to those of modern reptiles, then it's perfectly reasonable to imagine that they could survive on an order of magnitude less food. From WP [wikipedia.org]: "A crocodile needs from a tenth to a fifth of the food necessary for a lion of the same weight and can live half a year without eating." During the Jurassic and Cretaceous, the climate was very warm and humid, there were no polar ice caps, and a much higher proportion of the world's surface area was covered with rainforest compared to today. There seems to be a lot of uncertainty about productivity of the ancient forests, but this paper [gsapubs.org] says that in the Cretaceous it was probably double that of today. Believe it or not, the scientist who did this work may not have been a complete idiot. In fact, he may know more about his subject than you do, and may have made his estimates based on knowledge of his field. In fact, his publication list [ljmu.ac.uk] contains papers with titles like "The energetics of low browsing in sauropods."

Actually it kind of makes sense. We see in our modern developed culture that Childhood Obesity is on the rise. The Fast Food Industry has plainly stated that foods slow to digest are not their responsibility. We are already witnessing "in herds of up to a few tens of individuals per square kilometer" wondering in local Walmart Supper Stores. [google.com] Possibly a grant could be established that would allow the study of ventallation systems exhaust particles of Nordstroms and Walmarts?

Global climate change is an ongoing process that is affected by a large number of factors, both on the planet and off (i.e. solar cycles). The debate is the amount of contribution attributable to humans, what activities we can change to make things better (whatever that is), how much that short list is feasible, and how to get people to globally accept the necessary changes to their lives.

I posit that there is no one individual on earth today who can intelligently discuss all of these factors. We are stil

Yes indeed. Just like hurricanes or tornadoes correcting imbalances between areas of differing temperatures and pressure or earthquakes releasing pent-up tectonic plate movement.

That doesn't mean that I don't put up hurricane shutters or take shelter in my basement when these things happen. I do what I can to mitigate the damage that the self-correction will do to me and mine when and where I can.

Once the correction has come and gone, it's a little late to take any precautions against the havoc it unleash

Most of the rhetoric today is not about dealing with these corrections, but about trying to stop them all. Does anyone think we could stop all the hurricanes or earthquakes? I don't, so what are the odds we can stop the climate from readjusting if conditions warrant it?